Friam

Faith

Classic

List

Threaded

118 messages Options

123456

Nick Thompson

Re: faith

Argumentative positioning aside, you could not get out your drive way if you actually believed any of that. In the first place, the world isn’t interested in harming you. That’s the hardest part. REAllizing that they don’t love you AND they don’t hate you. THEY JUST DON’T GIVE A S—T.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

As another rider (only 44 years) - my faith is that every other driver out there is incompetent, blind, deaf, and out to get me. I credit that faith with my continuing existence!

davew

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012, at 06:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

Yeah, well: that philosophy will get you dead if you are a motorcycle rider. Maybe not the first year, but the longer you maintain "faith" that the other diver will stay in his lane, the more likely it becomes that you won't make it home one night.

I've been riding for 48 years, still alive...
--Doug
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:13 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
Since this thread is still going... Curt said:
"Faith: that the other drivers will stay on their side of the road. I don't have to track every one exactly."
----
Exactly!

It is faith when you stop monitoring the other cars when driving, stop looking at the ground you are about to step on when walking, etc. It is faith when you get out of bed without checking to see that the ground is still there. The actions themselves entail the faith; they do not result from faith, they are the faith. An interesting additional issue is when we do and do not explicitly talk about the things we have faith in. It might also be an additional issue on what basis some people have faith in a "super-natural" "higher-power". (Both scare-quotes seem necessary, because pretty everyone has faith in higher powers, and most people have faith in things they don't have natural explanations for, but we seem to be focusing primarily on the times when those faiths overlap.)

Eric

P.S. Curt, if you are into Power's Perceptual Control Theory, do you know Richard Marken and Warren Manell's work? They wrote a great article for a journal issue I am putting together.

P.P.S. The notion of "blind" faith is really very modern. Certainly it was not long ago that faith in the Judeo-Christian God was primarily supported by experiential evidence. "Behold the wonders," "experience God in every blade of grass," "check out this amazing cathedral," "our army won," etc. The fact that we sometimes meaningfully talk about "blind faith" seems to indicate that the normal meaning of the term "faith" is not inherently blind.

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 12:21 AM, Curt McNamara <[hidden email]> wrote:
I had been nicely ignoring this thread in the belief (faith?) that it would go away without affecting me. Alas, the need for a distraction from grading has drawn me back into its basin of (strange) attraction.

Faith: that the other drivers will stay on their side of the road. I don't have to track every one exactly.
Action based on belief: ref. William Powers: Behavior, the Control of Perception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_control_theory

Faith or belief: my mental models of the world will still be true tomorrow. These models have been built over time by hypothesis, testing, and adjustment (toddler and stairs example).

Curt
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
------------

Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: faith

Nick -

Good point, however we all probably agree that hyperbole is as common on this list as is cynicism.

I actually find myself leaving my driveway less and less... but not because I think anyone is out to get me, but in fact, as you point out, I'm more and more aware how much of a S--T no one gives?

I think one of the things that motivated me in my youth around riding a motorcycle was the actual exhiliration I felt every time I anticipated some numbskull's poor judgement or execution... I feel something somewhat different now. Especially realizing that as often as not, I *don't* anticipate them all.

- Steve

D.

Argumentative positioning aside, you could not get out your drive way if you actually believed any of that. In the first place, the world isn’t interested in harming you. That’s the hardest part. REAllizing that they don’t love you AND they don’t hate you. THEY JUST DON’T GIVE A S—T.

n

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith
As another rider (only 44 years) - my faith is that every other driver out there is incompetent, blind, deaf, and out to get me. I credit that faith with my continuing existence!

davew

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012, at 06:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Yeah, well: that philosophy will get you dead if you are a motorcycle rider. Maybe not the first year, but the longer you maintain "faith" that the other diver will stay in his lane, the more likely it becomes that you won't make it home one night.

I've been riding for 48 years, still alive...
--Doug
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:13 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
Since this thread is still going... Curt said:

"Faith: that the other drivers will stay on their side of the road. I don't have to track every one exactly."

----
Exactly!

It is faith when you stop monitoring the other cars when driving, stop looking at the ground you are about to step on when walking, etc. It is faith when you get out of bed without checking to see that the ground is still there. The actions themselves entail the faith; they do not result from faith, they are the faith. An interesting additional issue is when we do and do not explicitly talk about the things we have faith in. It might also be an additional issue on what basis some people have faith in a "super-natural" "higher-power". (Both scare-quotes seem necessary, because pretty everyone has faith in higher powers, and most people have faith in things they don't have natural explanations for, but we seem to be focusing primarily on the times when those faiths overlap.)

Eric

P.S. Curt, if you are into Power's Perceptual Control Theory, do you know Richard Marken and Warren Manell's work? They wrote a great article for a journal issue I am putting together.

P.P.S. The notion of "blind" faith is really very modern. Certainly it was not long ago that faith in the Judeo-Christian God was primarily supported by experiential evidence. "Behold the wonders," "experience God in every blade of grass," "check out this amazing cathedral," "our army won," etc. The fact that we sometimes meaningfully talk about "blind faith" seems to indicate that the normal meaning of the term "faith" is not inherently blind.

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 12:21 AM, Curt McNamara <[hidden email]> wrote:
I had been nicely ignoring this thread in the belief (faith?) that it would go away without affecting me. Alas, the need for a distraction from grading has drawn me back into its basin of (strange) attraction.

Faith: that the other drivers will stay on their side of the road. I don't have to track every one exactly.
Action based on belief: ref. William Powers: Behavior, the Control of Perception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_control_theory

Faith or belief: my mental models of the world will still be true tomorrow. These models have been built over time by hypothesis, testing, and adjustment (toddler and stairs example).

Curt
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
------------

Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Victoria Hughes

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Made sense to me.

On Sep 23, 2012, at 11:29 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Random anecdotal examples aside, my central point of "faith" as an article of a validated model vs "Faith" as a more consciously adopted element not backed up by the same type of validation seems pretty concise.
-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:58 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
But Russ... if you concede Tory's point, then I think you are quite stuck.

There are many, many, many people for whom the everyday world contains a divine being... and the everyday world is the everyday world. There are people who train hard to see God surrounding them, and there are people for whom it seems to come quite naturally (which is not to say it didn't develop, just that it came easily). For these people, by your definition, belief in God, and belief that God will continue to be with them forever, are NOT issues of faith.

Eric

P.S. I have no idea what Nick will say about "faith" vs. "belief"! I think the concepts overlap pretty obviously, i.e., faith seems like it should be a subclass of belief. On the other hand, one could treat them as two different ways of talking about the same sort of thing. If we can get past your odd claim that faith has to be religious AND that religious things are not part of everyday life, I would be very interested to know how you think the two relate.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 12:41 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nick,

As I understand your position the words "faith" and "belief" are synonyms. I would prefer a definition for "faith" that distinguishes it from "belief."

Tory,

Thanks for you comment on my posts. I'm glad you enjoy them.

My definition of faith makes use of the notion of the everyday world. But I'm not saying that the everyday world is the same for everyone. Your everyday world may be different from mine. I'm just saying that believing that the world will continue to conform to your sense of what the everyday world is like is not faith; it's simple belief.

Eric,

I would take "having faith in something" in the colloquial sense as different from "faith" in a religious context, which is what I was focusing on.

-- Russ

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Victoria Hughes <victoria@...> wrote:

Russ wrote, in part-

Faith, I would say (in fact I did earlier)

is believing something that one wouldn't otherwise believe without faith.

Believing that the everyday world is the everyday world

doesn't seem to me to require faith.

Russ, with all due respect for the enjoyment I get from your posts, I find this suspiciously tautological.

Who are you to define for the rest of humanity (and other sentient life forms) what 'the everyday world' incorporates? Numerous 'for instance' cases can immediately be made here. All you can do is define what you believe for yourself. You cannot extrapolate what is defensible for others to believe, from your own beliefs.

And this statement ' Faith is believing something that one wouldn't believe without faith'. Hm and hm again.

Eagleman's new book Incognito offers fruitful information from recent neuroscience that may interest others on this list. His ultimate sections bring up hard questions about legal and ethical issues in the face of the myriad 'zombie programs' that run most of our behaviour. This looks like - but is not as simplistic as - 'yet another pop science book.'

A review David Eagleman's "Incognito" - Brainiac

Tory

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
------------

Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: faith

Very academically stated, Tory.

What did it mean?

--Doug

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Victoria Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Made sense to me.
On Sep 23, 2012, at 11:29 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
Random anecdotal examples aside, my central point of "faith" as an article of a validated model vs "Faith" as a more consciously adopted element not backed up by the same type of validation seems pretty concise.
-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:58 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
But Russ... if you concede Tory's point, then I think you are quite stuck.

There are many, many, many people for whom the everyday world contains a divine being... and the everyday world is the everyday world. There are people who train hard to see God surrounding them, and there are people for whom it seems to come quite naturally (which is not to say it didn't develop, just that it came easily). For these people, by your definition, belief in God, and belief that God will continue to be with them forever, are NOT issues of faith.

Eric

P.S. I have no idea what Nick will say about "faith" vs. "belief"! I think the concepts overlap pretty obviously, i.e., faith seems like it should be a subclass of belief. On the other hand, one could treat them as two different ways of talking about the same sort of thing. If we can get past your odd claim that faith has to be religious AND that religious things are not part of everyday life, I would be very interested to know how you think the two relate.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 12:41 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nick,

As I understand your position the words "faith" and "belief" are synonyms. I would prefer a definition for "faith" that distinguishes it from "belief."

Tory,

Thanks for you comment on my posts. I'm glad you enjoy them.

My definition of faith makes use of the notion of the everyday world. But I'm not saying that the everyday world is the same for everyone. Your everyday world may be different from mine. I'm just saying that believing that the world will continue to conform to your sense of what the everyday world is like is not faith; it's simple belief.

Eric,

I would take "having faith in something" in the colloquial sense as different from "faith" in a religious context, which is what I was focusing on.

-- Russ

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Victoria Hughes <victoria@...> wrote:

Russ wrote, in part-

Faith, I would say (in fact I did earlier)

is believing something that one wouldn't otherwise believe without faith.

Believing that the everyday world is the everyday world

doesn't seem to me to require faith.

Russ, with all due respect for the enjoyment I get from your posts, I find this suspiciously tautological.

Who are you to define for the rest of humanity (and other sentient life forms) what 'the everyday world' incorporates? Numerous 'for instance' cases can immediately be made here. All you can do is define what you believe for yourself. You cannot extrapolate what is defensible for others to believe, from your own beliefs.

And this statement ' Faith is believing something that one wouldn't believe without faith'. Hm and hm again.

Eagleman's new book Incognito offers fruitful information from recent neuroscience that may interest others on this list. His ultimate sections bring up hard questions about legal and ethical issues in the face of the myriad 'zombie programs' that run most of our behaviour. This looks like - but is not as simplistic as - 'yet another pop science book.'

A review David Eagleman's "Incognito" - Brainiac

Tory

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
------------

Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Nick Thompson

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Eric Charles

Eric,

Peirce enthusiastically ridicules the notion of a tentative belief. My guess is that he would also ridicule the notion that we can decide to believe in something. But there is some sort of experience of local belief, I think. In context A I believe X whereas in contest B I belief Y, even though the two beliefs are incoherent. So, I might believe in God when in church but not when at the pool table; or vice versa, for that matter. I guess I am beginning to conceive of a landscape of belief, where some territories are owned by some beliefs and other territories are owned by others. What philosophers try to do is the conceptual equivalent of empire building … Anschlus. To conquer the entire map with one, super ordinate, belief system. The Third Reich of the Mind. But no belief is half-hearted. It’s just that some beliefs cover a lot less territory than others.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ERIC P. CHARLES
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 8:12 AM
To: Russ Abbott
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

"By 'inadequate' I mean inadequate according to that person's normal way of deciding what to believe."

But... Again I am confused... and admittedly being confused is often a step on the way to understanding...

Who have you ever known who believed in God, and that belief was not "normal", i.e. typical-for-them. I am not sure how you (as a third party) or I (as a first party) could determine which of my belief's were arrived at in the normal-way-by-which-I-arrive-at-beliefs. I also suspect that if we did arrive at such a criterion, the things I believe by faith would be quite random, and of little interest - for example, I am not sure on what basis I believe I probably missed the last episode of So You Think You Can Dance, but I believe I could probably Torrent it, and I believe it would make my wife happily, though I also believe NBC should make it available for free a bit after it airs. Which of those came by the normal means?

If we are returning to the start of this conversation (or at least what I think was the start of this thread), my belief that there is NOT a Judeo-Christian God is a bit a-typical for me, and likely by your criterion is a kind of Faith. There are lots of things I don't believe in, which other people seem to believe in (e.g., dictionaries), but I have pretty good reasons not to believe in those (e.g., the historic inaccuracy of the assertion that words have one and only one spelling).

Eric

P.S. I am not sure how crucial the word "decide" is to your point. I would argue, one does not typically "decide" what to believe. That is, the developmental process that forms the majority of our beliefs is not adequately characterized by the term "decide". Beliefs we consciously decided upon are surely a special case.

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 01:13 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Eric, For people for whom God is a normal part of their everyday world, faith is not an issue. They simply know whatever it is that they know. It's not matter of faith any more than it's a matter of faith that I'm typing on a keyboard right now.

I mentioned religion because that's where the discussion of faith started. (I think it did anyway.) But my definition of faith does not require religion; it only requires that one believe something for which one has inadequate reason for believing it -- other than one's faith that it's the case. By "inadequate" I mean inadequate according to that person's normal way of deciding what to believe. I don't want to impose any particular epidemiological perspective on anyone.

Nick, I think it's the other way around. As Eric said, faith is a subclass of belief. Faith is a belief you hold for reasons outside your normal epidemiological processes, i.e., a belief you hold that you would not hold were it not for your faith in that belief.

Steve, Your post is too long for me to comment on it here.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:58 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:

But Russ... if you concede Tory's point, then I think you are quite stuck.

There are many, many, many people for whom the everyday world contains a divine being... and the everyday world is the everyday world. There are people who train hard to see God surrounding them, and there are people for whom it seems to come quite naturally (which is not to say it didn't develop, just that it came easily). For these people, by your definition, belief in God, and belief that God will continue to be with them forever, are NOT issues of faith.

Eric

P.S. I have no idea what Nick will say about "faith" vs. "belief"! I think the concepts overlap pretty obviously, i.e., faith seems like it should be a subclass of belief. On the other hand, one could treat them as two different ways of talking about the same sort of thing. If we can get past your odd claim that faith has to be religious AND that religious things are not part of everyday life, I would be very interested to know how you think the two relate.

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 12:41 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick,

As I understand your position the words "faith" and "belief" are synonyms. I would prefer a definition for "faith" that distinguishes it from "belief."

Tory,

Thanks for you comment on my posts. I'm glad you enjoy them.

My definition of faith makes use of the notion of the everyday world. But I'm not saying that the everyday world is the same for everyone. Your everyday world may be different from mine. I'm just saying that believing that the world will continue to conform to your sense of what the everyday world is like is not faith; it's simple belief.

Eric,

I would take "having faith in something" in the colloquial sense as different from "faith" in a religious context, which is what I was focusing on.

-- Russ

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Victoria Hughes <victoria@...> wrote:

Russ wrote, in part-

Faith, I would say (in fact I did earlier)

is believing something that one wouldn't otherwise believe without faith.

Believing that the everyday world is the everyday world

doesn't seem to me to require faith.

Russ, with all due respect for the enjoyment I get from your posts, I find this suspiciously tautological.

Who are you to define for the rest of humanity (and other sentient life forms) what 'the everyday world' incorporates? Numerous 'for instance' cases can immediately be made here. All you can do is define what you believe for yourself. You cannot extrapolate what is defensible for others to believe, from your own beliefs.

And this statement ' Faith is believing something that one wouldn't believe without faith'. Hm and hm again.

Eagleman's new book Incognito offers fruitful information from recent neuroscience that may interest others on this list. His ultimate sections bring up hard questions about legal and ethical issues in the face of the myriad 'zombie programs' that run most of our behaviour. This looks like - but is not as simplistic as - 'yet another pop science book.'

A review David Eagleman's "Incognito" - Brainiac

Tory

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

------------

Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

I believe it was this letter, but I don't feel like spending the $18 that Macmillan wants to let me look at it.

Nature 289, 344 (29 January 1981); doi:10.1038/289344e0, Motorbike safety, G. K. MCGINTY, Redhill, Surrey, UK

The author analyzed the change in angular size of a single headlight travelling at reasonable speeds, the time it took for a motorist to look both ways before pulling out from a cross street, and concluded that a single round headlight of typical size would, in fact, be below the angular resolution of human vision at just the right moment for the motorist to pull out directly into the motorcycle's path. Perhaps not completely invisible, but too small to correctly judge distance or velocity. Not long after, motorcycles began to appear with the double wide headlights that have become standard equipment.

-- rec --

Nick Thompson

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Steve,

Cynics are disappointed idealists. Somewhere, way beyond all that, is Wisdom. N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:34 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

D.

Argumentative positioning aside, you could not get out your drive way if you actually believed any of that. In the first place, the world isn’t interested in harming you. That’s the hardest part. REAllizing that they don’t love you AND they don’t hate you. THEY JUST DON’T GIVE A S—T.

n

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith
As another rider (only 44 years) - my faith is that every other driver out there is incompetent, blind, deaf, and out to get me. I credit that faith with my continuing existence!

davew

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012, at 06:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Yeah, well: that philosophy will get you dead if you are a motorcycle rider. Maybe not the first year, but the longer you maintain "faith" that the other diver will stay in his lane, the more likely it becomes that you won't make it home one night.

I've been riding for 48 years, still alive...
--Doug
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:13 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
Since this thread is still going... Curt said:
"Faith: that the other drivers will stay on their side of the road. I don't have to track every one exactly."
----
Exactly!

It is faith when you stop monitoring the other cars when driving, stop looking at the ground you are about to step on when walking, etc. It is faith when you get out of bed without checking to see that the ground is still there. The actions themselves entail the faith; they do not result from faith, they are the faith. An interesting additional issue is when we do and do not explicitly talk about the things we have faith in. It might also be an additional issue on what basis some people have faith in a "super-natural" "higher-power". (Both scare-quotes seem necessary, because pretty everyone has faith in higher powers, and most people have faith in things they don't have natural explanations for, but we seem to be focusing primarily on the times when those faiths overlap.)

Eric

P.S. Curt, if you are into Power's Perceptual Control Theory, do you know Richard Marken and Warren Manell's work? They wrote a great article for a journal issue I am putting together.

P.P.S. The notion of "blind" faith is really very modern. Certainly it was not long ago that faith in the Judeo-Christian God was primarily supported by experiential evidence. "Behold the wonders," "experience God in every blade of grass," "check out this amazing cathedral," "our army won," etc. The fact that we sometimes meaningfully talk about "blind faith" seems to indicate that the normal meaning of the term "faith" is not inherently blind.

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 12:21 AM, Curt McNamara <[hidden email]> wrote:
I had been nicely ignoring this thread in the belief (faith?) that it would go away without affecting me. Alas, the need for a distraction from grading has drawn me back into its basin of (strange) attraction.

Faith: that the other drivers will stay on their side of the road. I don't have to track every one exactly.
Action based on belief: ref. William Powers: Behavior, the Control of Perception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_control_theory

Faith or belief: my mental models of the world will still be true tomorrow. These models have been built over time by hypothesis, testing, and adjustment (toddler and stairs example).

Curt
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
------------

Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: faith

That was a very wise observation, Nick.

--Doug

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Steve,

Cynics are disappointed idealists. Somewhere, way beyond all that, is Wisdom. N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:34 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith
Nick -

Good point, however we all probably agree that hyperbole is as common on this list as is cynicism.

I actually find myself leaving my driveway less and less... but not because I think anyone is out to get me, but in fact, as you point out, I'm more and more aware how much of a S--T no one gives?

I think one of the things that motivated me in my youth around riding a motorcycle was the actual exhiliration I felt every time I anticipated some numbskull's poor judgement or execution... I feel something somewhat different now. Especially realizing that as often as not, I *don't* anticipate them all.

- Steve
D.

Argumentative positioning aside, you could not get out your drive way if you actually believed any of that. In the first place, the world isn’t interested in harming you. That’s the hardest part. REAllizing that they don’t love you AND they don’t hate you. THEY JUST DON’T GIVE A S—T.

n

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith
As another rider (only 44 years) - my faith is that every other driver out there is incompetent, blind, deaf, and out to get me. I credit that faith with my continuing existence!

davew

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012, at 06:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Yeah, well: that philosophy will get you dead if you are a motorcycle rider. Maybe not the first year, but the longer you maintain "faith" that the other diver will stay in his lane, the more likely it becomes that you won't make it home one night.

I've been riding for 48 years, still alive...
--Doug
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:13 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
Since this thread is still going... Curt said:
"Faith: that the other drivers will stay on their side of the road. I don't have to track every one exactly."

----
Exactly!

It is faith when you stop monitoring the other cars when driving, stop looking at the ground you are about to step on when walking, etc. It is faith when you get out of bed without checking to see that the ground is still there. The actions themselves entail the faith; they do not result from faith, they are the faith. An interesting additional issue is when we do and do not explicitly talk about the things we have faith in. It might also be an additional issue on what basis some people have faith in a "super-natural" "higher-power". (Both scare-quotes seem necessary, because pretty everyone has faith in higher powers, and most people have faith in things they don't have natural explanations for, but we seem to be focusing primarily on the times when those faiths overlap.)

Eric

P.S. Curt, if you are into Power's Perceptual Control Theory, do you know Richard Marken and Warren Manell's work? They wrote a great article for a journal issue I am putting together.

P.P.S. The notion of "blind" faith is really very modern. Certainly it was not long ago that faith in the Judeo-Christian God was primarily supported by experiential evidence. "Behold the wonders," "experience God in every blade of grass," "check out this amazing cathedral," "our army won," etc. The fact that we sometimes meaningfully talk about "blind faith" seems to indicate that the normal meaning of the term "faith" is not inherently blind.

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 12:21 AM, Curt McNamara <[hidden email]> wrote:
I had been nicely ignoring this thread in the belief (faith?) that it would go away without affecting me. Alas, the need for a distraction from grading has drawn me back into its basin of (strange) attraction.

Faith: that the other drivers will stay on their side of the road. I don't have to track every one exactly.
Action based on belief: ref. William Powers: Behavior, the Control of Perception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_control_theory

Faith or belief: my mental models of the world will still be true tomorrow. These models have been built over time by hypothesis, testing, and adjustment (toddler and stairs example).

Curt
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
------------

Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

lrudolph

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Nick to Robert (or perhaps to Russ, I got confused):

> I guess its fair to
> say that in matters of small f faith, you are a catholic
> and I am a quaker. I really don't care about what the
> minister has to say; I want to hear from the
> congregation.

Trusting (did you-all already differentiate "trust" from
"faith" and "belief"? I may have missed it) that, when
(a member of) the congregation speak, it *is* because
"the spirit moved" him/her/them to speak? That is,
I think, integral to large-Q Quakerism. As an apparently
small-q quaker, is it problematic to you, or neutral, or
whatever the opposite of "problematic" may be?

Digression: etymologically, a "problem" is what is in
front of you. I suppose that would make its opposite
that which is behind you--if you're Luther, the Devil
(in a mass of details and a mess of ink).

Lee

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Prof David West

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Not true - because I have a countervailing belief - I am smarter and more aware than they and can thwart their evil intentions.

And if the world is not interested in harming me, why did it give me a death sentence?

davew

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012, at 09:18 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

D.

Argumentative positioning aside, you could not get out your drive way if you actually believed any of that. In the first place, the world isn’t interested in harming you. That’s the hardest part. REAllizing that they don’t love you AND they don’t hate you. THEY JUST DON’T GIVE A S—T.

n

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith
As another rider (only 44 years) - my faith is that every other driver out there is incompetent, blind, deaf, and out to get me. I credit that faith with my continuing existence!

davew

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012, at 06:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Yeah, well: that philosophy will get you dead if you are a motorcycle rider. Maybe not the first year, but the longer you maintain "faith" that the other diver will stay in his lane, the more likely it becomes that you won't make it home one night.

I've been riding for 48 years, still alive...
--Doug
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:13 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
Since this thread is still going... Curt said:

"Faith: that the other drivers will stay on their side of the road. I don't have to track every one exactly."

----
Exactly!

It is faith when you stop monitoring the other cars when driving, stop looking at the ground you are about to step on when walking, etc. It is faith when you get out of bed without checking to see that the ground is still there. The actions themselves entail the faith; they do not result from faith, they are the faith. An interesting additional issue is when we do and do not explicitly talk about the things we have faith in. It might also be an additional issue on what basis some people have faith in a "super-natural" "higher-power". (Both scare-quotes seem necessary, because pretty everyone has faith in higher powers, and most people have faith in things they don't have natural explanations for, but we seem to be focusing primarily on the times when those faiths overlap.)

Eric

P.S. Curt, if you are into Power's Perceptual Control Theory, do you know Richard Marken and Warren Manell's work? They wrote a great article for a journal issue I am putting together.

P.P.S. The notion of "blind" faith is really very modern. Certainly it was not long ago that faith in the Judeo-Christian God was primarily supported by experiential evidence. "Behold the wonders," "experience God in every blade of grass," "check out this amazing cathedral," "our army won," etc. The fact that we sometimes meaningfully talk about "blind faith" seems to indicate that the normal meaning of the term "faith" is not inherently blind.

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 12:21 AM, Curt McNamara <[hidden email]> wrote:
I had been nicely ignoring this thread in the belief (faith?) that it would go away without affecting me. Alas, the need for a distraction from grading has drawn me back into its basin of (strange) attraction.

Faith: that the other drivers will stay on their side of the road. I don't have to track every one exactly.
Action based on belief: ref. William Powers: Behavior, the Control of Perception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_control_theory

Faith or belief: my mental models of the world will still be true tomorrow. These models have been built over time by hypothesis, testing, and adjustment (toddler and stairs example).

Curt
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
------------

Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

As a novice philosopher... Is it possible 'belief' doesn't require/expect any consequences while 'faith' does? I can believe in God but not expect God to do anything about it. If I have faith in God, I expect something in return depending on the model of God I have faith in. If nothing happens I can lose faith in God but still believe in God. (As pointed out the reverse/transposition of the form is easier to construct.)

Robert C

On 9/23/12 11:07 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Russ,

I take your point, but still, I would have a hard time composing a sentence of the form, “ Russ has faith in X but he doesn’t believe in it.” Can you compose such a sentence for me?

N

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:42 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

Nick,

As I understand your position the words "faith" and "belief" are synonyms. I would prefer a definition for "faith" that distinguishes it from "belief."

Tory,

Thanks for you comment on my posts. I'm glad you enjoy them.

My definition of faith makes use of the notion of the everyday world. But I'm not saying that the everyday world is the same for everyone. Your everyday world may be different from mine. I'm just saying that believing that the world will continue to conform to your sense of what the everyday world is like is not faith; it's simple belief.

Eric,

I would take "having faith in something" in the colloquial sense as different from "faith" in a religious context, which is what I was focusing on.

-- Russ

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Victoria Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Russ wrote, in part-

Faith, I would say (in fact I did earlier)

is believing something that one wouldn't otherwise believe without faith.

Believing that the everyday world is the everyday world

doesn't seem to me to require faith.

Russ, with all due respect for the enjoyment I get from your posts, I find this suspiciously tautological.

Who are you to define for the rest of humanity (and other sentient life forms) what 'the everyday world' incorporates? Numerous 'for instance' cases can immediately be made here. All you can do is define what you believe for yourself. You cannot extrapolate what is defensible for others to believe, from your own beliefs.

And this statement ' Faith is believing something that one wouldn't believe without faith'. Hm and hm again.

Eagleman's new book Incognito offers fruitful information from recent neuroscience that may interest others on this list. His ultimate sections bring up hard questions about legal and ethical issues in the face of the myriad 'zombie programs' that run most of our behaviour. This looks like - but is not as simplistic as - 'yet another pop science book.'

A review David Eagleman's "Incognito" - Brainiac

Tory

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Dave -

Not true - because I have a countervailing belief - I am smarter and more aware than they and can thwart their evil intentions.

Inarguable reasoning Dave... I commend you. Unfortunately I slipped behind the curve on my self-image regarding smart+aware a while back.   It may be early onset wisdom or late-stage cynicism...

It *was* my youthful idealism that had me quite willing to hurtle down the highways with nothing between me and the road except a few feet (or inches) of air and maybe a 1/8 or less of leather.   I was supremely confident in my own smartness and awareness as the perfect antidote to all challengers.

<Anecdote> For example, one evening just after dusk 30+ years ago, I was hurtling down Interstate 17 in the right lane (like a good doobie since I was roughly traveling at the speed limit and was not passing anyone) when something made me think I needed to get into the left lane... I checked mirrors, hit my turns, looked over my shoulder, and drifted left only to realize that the right lane was no longer there (well, most of it anyway). I stopped quickly and backtracked to find that in fact over half of the right lane had sloughed off into the canyon in a mudslide. I went back "upstream" a hundred yards facing traffic with headlight and flashers in the right lane and pulled over the first two cars who I left to pass the word along and went on my way (I still had 7 hours riding ahead of me that night).

Those with "Faith" might say that "God spoke to me". I simply believe that my cultivated awareness hinted to me that something was amiss up ahead (missing guardrail in my headlights? Dark abyss below my threshold of consciousness? Had I heard or felt something over engine/road vibrations?)... Today I'm pretty sure I would just hurtle off the end of the pavement with a goofy puzzled expression of WTF?

</Anecdote>

And if the world is not interested in harming me, why did it give me a death sentence?

I'm pretty sure that despite the world's total disinterest in me (and by extension you), that death sentence is a blessing compared to some of the alternatives (read your Utopian/Dystopian literature for references). Of course, I just might be spending too much time juggling failing parents up and down the halls of nursing homes.

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: faith

I'm not prone to experiencing "premonitions". Additional factoid: I ride paranoid because they *are* out to get me.

Yet, the day before yesterday as I was heading south down to Santa Fe on the GSA1200, my premonition organ wiggled, and a voice inside my head said, "I sense danger." Like somebody who rides paranoid needs to hear that, right?

So I went from DEFCON 2 to DEFCON 4. Twenty seconds later at the very next traffic light in Pojoaque a northbound duelly pickup truck turned suddenly, unexpectedly left into the intersection across my path, smack ass dab right in front of me. Had the little voice in my head not spoken, I would have been grill hamburger. As it was, I had engaged that extra little bit of defense which gave the margin I needed to miss him.

We won't even go into the bit about the fat guy on the Harley who was going to follow the truck through the intersection, and who nearly fell off his bike in the process of aborting.

Apropo of nothing, of course, except that I retain my faith that they are out to get me when I'm on the motorcycle.

--Doug

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave -

Not true - because I have a countervailing belief - I am smarter and more aware than they and can thwart their evil intentions.

Inarguable reasoning Dave... I commend you. Unfortunately I slipped behind the curve on my self-image regarding smart+aware a while back.   It may be early onset wisdom or late-stage cynicism...

It *was* my youthful idealism that had me quite willing to hurtle down the highways with nothing between me and the road except a few feet (or inches) of air and maybe a 1/8 or less of leather.   I was supremely confident in my own smartness and awareness as the perfect antidote to all challengers.

<Anecdote> For example, one evening just after dusk 30+ years ago, I was hurtling down Interstate 17 in the right lane (like a good doobie since I was roughly traveling at the speed limit and was not passing anyone) when something made me think I needed to get into the left lane... I checked mirrors, hit my turns, looked over my shoulder, and drifted left only to realize that the right lane was no longer there (well, most of it anyway). I stopped quickly and backtracked to find that in fact over half of the right lane had sloughed off into the canyon in a mudslide. I went back "upstream" a hundred yards facing traffic with headlight and flashers in the right lane and pulled over the first two cars who I left to pass the word along and went on my way (I still had 7 hours riding ahead of me that night).

Those with "Faith" might say that "God spoke to me". I simply believe that my cultivated awareness hinted to me that something was amiss up ahead (missing guardrail in my headlights? Dark abyss below my threshold of consciousness? Had I heard or felt something over engine/road vibrations?)... Today I'm pretty sure I would just hurtle off the end of the pavement with a goofy puzzled expression of WTF?

</Anecdote>

And if the world is not interested in harming me, why did it give me a death sentence?

I'm pretty sure that despite the world's total disinterest in me (and by extension you), that death sentence is a blessing compared to some of the alternatives (read your Utopian/Dystopian literature for references).   Of course, I just might be spending too much time juggling failing parents up and down the halls of nursing homes.

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Steve Smith

Re: faith

Doug -

Congratulations on avoiding another opportunity to become someone's hood
ornament!
> Apropo of nothing, of course, except that I retain my faith that they
> are out to get me when I'm on the motorcycle.
However, for the sake of the Monkey, the Weasel and the Mulberry bush, I
contend that your use of the world "faith" here aligns with my use of
the word "Faith" in general and roughly matches what those who I believe
you revile (or at least chide) do. You (as they) choose a *working
statement* which has no basis in fact (has been refuted or at least
can't be verified), but which *works well for you* and the *rhetoric* of
the statement plays well within your community (of other riders who
subscribe to the same Faith).

I think I'm turning to butter.

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: faith

Steve,

I'm disappointed that you missed one additional opportunity to chide me about my "faith": the imaginary voice in my head.

On a brighter note, however, at least there weren't any two-way telepathic conversations involved.

--Doug

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug -

Congratulations on avoiding another opportunity to become someone's hood ornament!

Apropo of nothing, of course, except that I retain my faith that they are out to get me when I'm on the motorcycle.

However, for the sake of the Monkey, the Weasel and the Mulberry bush, I contend that your use of the world "faith" here aligns with my use of the word "Faith" in general and roughly matches what those who I believe you revile (or at least chide) do. You (as they) choose a *working statement* which has no basis in fact (has been refuted or at least can't be verified), but which *works well for you* and the *rhetoric* of the statement plays well within your community (of other riders who subscribe to the same Faith).

I think I'm turning to butter.

- Steve

Dean Gerber

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

We are all fortunate indeed that we have this very primitive stem brain that is extremely perceptive of and extremely knowledgeable of the mostly predictable physical world. It is not distracted by all those "higher" issues, faith, belief, Yahweh, etc., we all endlessly try to wrestle to ground. It simply does its job, which is to protest us from the consequence of our of our own actions with that physical world; and to quickly intervene when we are not paying attention and are soon to either die or be seriously harmed.

I allow my razor sharp chef's knife to fall over the edge of my counter-top toward my bare feet directly below the plunging knife. Ms. Stem jerks the proper foot, the one that would have been pierced, out of the way, using the other foot, the one that would not have been pierced, to create a stable structure against which the perfect jerk can operate. All this happens before I am even aware the knife has fallen. Ms. Stem employs some might poweful computations to figure all his out, and this case can take immediate action, the proper reflex (the leg jerk) whether I liked it or not.

I think in your case, Ms. Stem had it all figured out well before things turned critical, but she does not know how to steer your motorcycle. When she evolved to her current talent, there were no motorcycles, but there were plunging objects, and yes cliffs. Along the way, fortunately for us, and by "us" I mean our Cerebellae, she can send us messages, like "move left" (you idiot, you are about to go over a cliff). To your credit, your particular Cerebellum got the message an took appropriate actions. That goodness for that. And a special note of appreciation to Ms. Stem. Nothing for God, Yaweh, premonition, ESP, Guardian Angel or other figments of our Cerebellae.

--Dean Gerber

From: Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

I'm not prone to experiencing "premonitions". Additional factoid: I ride paranoid because they *are* out to get me.

We won't even go into the bit about the fat guy on the Harley who was going to follow the truck through the intersection, and who nearly fell off his bike in the process of aborting.

Apropo of nothing, of course, except that I retain my faith that they are out to get me when I'm on the motorcycle.

--Doug

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave -

Not true - because I have a countervailing belief - I am smarter and more aware than they and can thwart their evil intentions.

Inarguable reasoning Dave... I commend you. Unfortunately I slipped behind the curve on my self-image regarding smart+aware a while back.   It may be early onset wisdom or late-stage cynicism...

It *was* my youthful idealism that had me quite willing to hurtle down the highways with nothing between me and the road except a few feet (or inches) of air and maybe a 1/8 or less of leather.   I was supremely confident in my own smartness and awareness as the perfect antidote to all challengers.

<Anecdote> For example, one evening just after dusk 30+ years ago, I was hurtling down Interstate 17 in the right lane (like a good doobie since I was roughly traveling at the speed limit and was not passing anyone) when something made me think I needed to get into the left lane... I checked mirrors, hit my turns, looked over my shoulder, and drifted left only to realize that the right lane was no longer there (well, most of it anyway). I stopped quickly and backtracked to find that in fact over half of the right lane had sloughed off into the canyon in a mudslide. I went back "upstream" a hundred yards facing traffic with headlight and flashers in the right lane and pulled over the first two cars who I left to pass the word along and went on my way (I still had 7 hours riding ahead of me that night).

Those with "Faith" might say that "God spoke to me". I simply believe that my cultivated awareness hinted to me that something was amiss up ahead (missing guardrail in my headlights? Dark abyss below my threshold of consciousness? Had I heard or felt something over engine/road vibrations?)... Today I'm pretty sure I would just hurtle off the end of the pavement with a goofy puzzled expression of WTF?

</Anecdote>

And if the world is not interested in harming me, why did it give me a death sentence?

I'm pretty sure that despite the world's total disinterest in me (and by extension you), that death sentence is a blessing compared to some of the alternatives (read your Utopian/Dystopian literature for references).   Of course, I just might be spending too much time juggling failing parents up and down the halls of nursing homes.

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

glen ropella

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

It does seem that we've come to some agreement on the meaning of the
word. It seems basically centered around Nick's original usage: faith
is a kind of short circuit for justification. Steve's "faith" only
short circuits a little bit, whereas his "Faith" short circuits a lot.
The same could be said of Russ'.

We could think of this in terms of compressibility where faith is less
compressible than Faith.

But I think Robert's point is somehow crucial because it gets at what I
want. The idea that faith implies something about acting in the face of
uncertainty.

When we take something on [F|f]aith, we're implying that the truth or
falsity of the thing we're taking on [f|F]aith has an impact on the
outcome, whereas a mere belief can have no impact on outcome. This
includes ends justified indeterminates like "I'll kill you because I
have faith that God wants me to kill you." Even though we may never
determine the truth or falsity of their article of faith, if that person
later came to believe the negation, guilt or repentance is the different
consequence.

This sounds like the beginning of a measure we might use to distinguish
faith from other types of thoughts. Some thoughts might be "no-ops"
whereas some have an effect. Even if we factor out all the
subjectivity, intention, consciousness hoo-ha, we might be able to say
something like: incompressible processes (all shortcuts that can be
taken have been taken -- i.e. Faith) are less expressive (or flexible,
or adaptable) than compressible processes. This might match up with
other measures being used in neuroscience and/or psychology.

We might also be able to apply some graph theory in the sense that some
actions in a causal network will be more like cut points than others.
If a graph has high connectivity, the uncertainty surrounding any given
action matters much less than that surrounding something on the critical
path. I know that, personally, I'd be much more likely to invoke and
talk about "faith" when considering a cut-point action as opposed to one
that had plenty of low-hanging fruit alternatives.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

glen ropella

Re: faith

glen wrote at 09/24/2012 04:16 PM:
> We could think of this in terms of compressibility where faith is less
> compressible than Faith.

Sorry. I meant the opposite: Faith is less compressible than faith.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: faith

In reply to this post by glen ropella

But my point (regarding God) was an expectation of action by whatever I
have faith in and has nothing to do with action on my part. The
expected action can be provision of n virgins, not going to hell, relief
from pain, reincarnation as a higher being and all sorts of other forms
of divine intervention.

But then if atheists have a faith in a non-divine universe then they
also expect non-action, hmm.

Robert C
PS I may have missed it but please can you explain what a compressible
process is? (I know how it relates to things like gasses and some
liquids). R

On 9/24/12 5:16 PM, glen wrote:

> It does seem that we've come to some agreement on the meaning of the
> word. It seems basically centered around Nick's original usage: faith
> is a kind of short circuit for justification. Steve's "faith" only
> short circuits a little bit, whereas his "Faith" short circuits a lot.
> The same could be said of Russ'.
>
> We could think of this in terms of compressibility where faith is less
> compressible than Faith.
>
> But I think Robert's point is somehow crucial because it gets at what I
> want. The idea that faith implies something about acting in the face of
> uncertainty.
>
> When we take something on [F|f]aith, we're implying that the truth or
> falsity of the thing we're taking on [f|F]aith has an impact on the
> outcome, whereas a mere belief can have no impact on outcome. This
> includes ends justified indeterminates like "I'll kill you because I
> have faith that God wants me to kill you." Even though we may never
> determine the truth or falsity of their article of faith, if that person
> later came to believe the negation, guilt or repentance is the different
> consequence.
>
> This sounds like the beginning of a measure we might use to distinguish
> faith from other types of thoughts. Some thoughts might be "no-ops"
> whereas some have an effect. Even if we factor out all the
> subjectivity, intention, consciousness hoo-ha, we might be able to say
> something like: incompressible processes (all shortcuts that can be
> taken have been taken -- i.e. Faith) are less expressive (or flexible,
> or adaptable) than compressible processes. This might match up with
> other measures being used in neuroscience and/or psychology.
>
> We might also be able to apply some graph theory in the sense that some
> actions in a causal network will be more like cut points than others.
> If a graph has high connectivity, the uncertainty surrounding any given
> action matters much less than that surrounding something on the critical
> path. I know that, personally, I'd be much more likely to invoke and
> talk about "faith" when considering a cut-point action as opposed to one
> that had plenty of low-hanging fruit alternatives.
>

glen ropella

Re: faith

Robert J. Cordingley wrote at 09/24/2012 04:38 PM:
> But my point (regarding God) was an expectation of action by whatever I
> have faith in and has nothing to do with action on my part. The
> expected action can be provision of n virgins, not going to hell, relief
> from pain, reincarnation as a higher being and all sorts of other forms
> of divine intervention.

That's just a slight variation on what I laid out. The point being that
whatever the article of faith is (a being, an attribute of the world,
etc.), if it _matters_ to the conclusion whether or not that article is
true/false or exists or whatever, _then_ belief in it is more likely to
be called "faith". That's because the word "faith" is used to call out
or point out when someone is basing their position (or their actions),
in part, on an unjustified assumption.

I.e. "faith" is a label used to identify especially important
components. Less important components can be negligible, ignored, or
easily adopted by everyone involved.

> PS I may have missed it but please can you explain what a compressible
> process is? (I know how it relates to things like gasses and some
> liquids). R

A compressible system can be (adequately) represented, mimicked, or
replaced by a smaller system. Any (adequate) representation of an
incompressible system will be just as large as the system itself.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

123456